Michelle Mone

Lost, your posting style reminds me of a well known Blackpool fan Alan Vincent?
Or are you his son Michael 😉
 
Lost Seasider said:
@Kurtan, sorry, quoted wrong post.

If you follow the tweet back, that's Dan Carden (PAC) and it's dated 25 May 2021, after a lot of digging that resolves back to a one-day hearing, that never produced a report, and seems to have been ignored in the press as well, here's the transcript: https://committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/2235/default/

There were four witnesses on that day, starting with the angry one from your tweet:

Thomas Martin - ARCO Limited
They do in fact sell PPE, mostly of the bright yellow kind that you'll see on building sites and the like, although their main business seems to be protective footwear, they also have a bit of a line in respirators and masks, but most of that's sourced from other brands, and their own brand masks are clearly nowhere near spec.

They didn't have what was needed at the time, and at first glance they seem to be mostly retailers, so they likely fell at the first hurdle when someone Googled who they were, but in retrospect that might've been a mistake, luck of the draw though.

Sarah Stoute - Full Support Healthcare
Sold the thick end of £2bn and her main complaint seems to be that those were "orders" rather than "contracts".

I hardly think that counts as turning her away.

Iain Liddell - Uniserve
Q15 Our position was that we were contacted by the DHSC on Mothering Sunday 22 March last year initially to urgently move ventilators out of China into the UK. Prior to that, we had not spoken to the DHSC and we had not sold into Government. The guys who contacted us came from a commercial world and would have known Uniserve from that commercial world we are fairly well recognised for our services and our strengths in places like China. From that first call, we were able to urgently move ventilators by air freight into the UK.

So our initial contact with the DHSC was directly made by them to us. That led to them asking us if we could source for them some desperately required PPE, which was based on various different products and commodities. Initially, it was based on gowns and then gloves and masks. Right at the very beginning, we said to them, “We do not normally procure PPE, but we have a huge network of customers, vendors, manufacturers and factories throughout China that do”—we work in that sector and have done for a long time. We said that we would put the call out to them to try to locate the specific items that they were looking for.

Q16 Absolutely, we did not approach the Government, and absolutely we were not approached by any Government middlemen. The call came directly from the DHSC, directly to us.

So DHSC actively searching for PPE suppliers rather than handing contracts out to cronies, that's hardly turning them away either, is it?

Chris Wakeman - Bunzi
£167m contracts, his role there appears to answer questions about media reports about his company being placed back on an approved list by Lord Feldman, the reports were wrong, although LF did contact him and ask him to speak to the lead of the new PPE team.

Again, DHSC searching for PPE proactively, not turning it away.


Not looking good so far, is it?
Click to expand...
"Luck of the draw " for an established ppe firm but straight to the front of the queue for a brand new company with £100 of assets as long as you are linked to a tory minister.
 
Chunkylad said:
Lost, your posting style reminds me of a well known Blackpool fan Alan Vincent?
Or are you his son Michael 😉
Click to expand...
Just someone with professional training and experience of working as an expert, and my posting style reflects that, the very first thing you will learn is that for every statement that you make, you will be asked "what is the evidentiary basis for that statement", and if you can't answer you will be in trouble.

So, if a junior were to say to me "this is now very well known and documented", my immediate response would be, okay, go find the documents then, and if (when) they couldn't, I would be angry.
 
That stance will do you well.

It might also be a curse in 2025 when Labour are in Govt frustrating the hell out of you and the stock response will be “show the evidence?”
 
Interesting insight from Lost to his thought process, which I'm sure serves him well as an "expert". It also explains his condescending attitude to the rest of us who disagree, obviously regards us in the same light as his "juniors"

This is a social media website, where we discuss whatever we wish. You can divide posters into three rough groups:

First, those who's response to everything is gut / emotional or belief driven
Second, those who read widely, listen to many sources, and form a view based on their prejudices, beliefs and experience.
Thirdly, those who will only write about what they can prove with published evidence.

These are all equally valid and all have their flaws, just like us posters.

Let's take the title of the post as an example.

Michelle Mone lobbied for a business to be given a PPE contract, via the VIP route ( ruled illegal, by the way)
She did not reveal any connection to the company as she has repeatedly said she has no links, that is evidence at that time.
To drive home her independence, she instructed legals to threaten several people who wrote about it, including the New European. That is also evidence at that time, widely reported.
Investigative journalists uncovered the web of the new company formed around the time she was lobbying. The most significant evidence was that the sole person of significant control was sacked, proving that he was not the sole person of control. They further discovered that her husband, Doug Barrowman, actually owned the company. The evidence has therefore changed.
Michelle Mone and her husband had an in-house film made about their life, and how badly they had been treated. They followed this up with a BBC interview. Despite her previous denials, she admitted that she had lied. Solid evidence. She said she had done it on legal advice.
Michelle Mone insisted that she had no benefit from the contract, not sure in what Lala land (sorry Lala) a wife can think she doesn't benefit from her husband's wealth. more changed evidence.
Her legal advisor goes public, threatening to sue anyone who says that he advised her to lie, more evidence.

The point of this longwinded ramble is to show what the three types would think.
First group would be pro or anti Mone depending on their politics, whether they fancied her, or whether they thought Corbyn would have done worse.
Second group would have changed their minds as things developed, or may well have used their life experience to think that it was wrong from the start
Third would have to change their view based on the available evidence as the story developed. If that view is not changed, then a three is actually a two.

And in the end, non of us makes the slightest scrap of difference.

PS, happy to pass on my Engineers definition of an expert if anyone is interested :)
 
Tangerinemoss said:
Interesting insight from Lost to his thought process, which I'm sure serves him well as an "expert". It also explains his condescending attitude to the rest of us who disagree, obviously regards us in the same light as his "juniors"

This is a social media website, where we discuss whatever we wish. You can divide posters into three rough groups:

First, those who's response to everything is gut / emotional or belief driven
Second, those who read widely, listen to many sources, and form a view based on their prejudices, beliefs and experience.
Thirdly, those who will only write about what they can prove with published evidence.

These are all equally valid and all have their flaws, just like us posters.

Let's take the title of the post as an example.

Michelle Mone lobbied for a business to be given a PPE contract, via the VIP route ( ruled illegal, by the way)
She did not reveal any connection to the company as she has repeatedly said she has no links, that is evidence at that time.
To drive home her independence, she instructed legals to threaten several people who wrote about it, including the New European. That is also evidence at that time, widely reported.
Investigative journalists uncovered the web of the new company formed around the time she was lobbying. The most significant evidence was that the sole person of significant control was sacked, proving that he was not the sole person of control. They further discovered that her husband, Doug Barrowman, actually owned the company. The evidence has therefore changed.
Michelle Mone and her husband had an in-house film made about their life, and how badly they had been treated. They followed this up with a BBC interview. Despite her previous denials, she admitted that she had lied. Solid evidence. She said she had done it on legal advice.
Michelle Mone insisted that she had no benefit from the contract, not sure in what Lala land (sorry Lala) a wife can think she doesn't benefit from her husband's wealth. more changed evidence.
Her legal advisor goes public, threatening to sue anyone who says that he advised her to lie, more evidence.

The point of this longwinded ramble is to show what the three types would think.
First group would be pro or anti Mone depending on their politics, whether they fancied her, or whether they thought Corbyn would have done worse.
Second group would have changed their minds as things developed, or may well have used their life experience to think that it was wrong from the start
Third would have to change their view based on the available evidence as the story developed. If that view is not changed, then a three is actually a two.

And in the end, non of us makes the slightest scrap of difference.

PS, happy to pass on my Engineers definition of an expert if anyone is interested :)
Click to expand...
I belong to the group you’ve omitted 🤪
Which group do you subscribe to ?
Love the PS 😂….. x being the unknown quantity …as for spert🤣
 
Fourth group - those who understand that what is reported in the media can often be misleading and/or inaccurate, that the received wisdom can be plain wrong as a result, and who therefore try to find better, more reliable sources to discover what is truly going on.

Hence, why I often end up swimming against the tide.
 
Lost Seasider said:
Fourth group - those who understand that what is reported in the media can often be misleading and/or inaccurate, that the received wisdom can be plain wrong as a result, and who therefore try to find better, more reliable sources to discover what is truly going on.

Hence, why I often end up swimming against the tide.
Click to expand...
Tufton Street communiques aren't better, nor more reliable.
 
Lost Seasider said:
Fourth group - those who understand that what is reported in the media can often be misleading and/or inaccurate, that the received wisdom can be plain wrong as a result, and who therefore try to find better, more reliable sources to discover what is truly going on.

Hence, why I often end up swimming against the tide.
Click to expand...
No, that is covered by group 2. You need your life experience to work out what is reliable in amongst all the dross.
 
Lost Seasider said:
The Permanent Secretary!!!!!!!!!!! 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Click to expand...
Ok
Tangerinemoss said:
Interesting insight from Lost to his thought process, which I'm sure serves him well as an "expert". It also explains his condescending attitude to the rest of us who disagree, obviously regards us in the same light as his "juniors"

This is a social media website, where we discuss whatever we wish. You can divide posters into three rough groups:

First, those who's response to everything is gut / emotional or belief driven
Second, those who read widely, listen to many sources, and form a view based on their prejudices, beliefs and experience.
Thirdly, those who will only write about what they can prove with published evidence.

These are all equally valid and all have their flaws, just like us posters.

Let's take the title of the post as an example.

Michelle Mone lobbied for a business to be given a PPE contract, via the VIP route ( ruled illegal, by the way)
She did not reveal any connection to the company as she has repeatedly said she has no links, that is evidence at that time.
To drive home her independence, she instructed legals to threaten several people who wrote about it, including the New European. That is also evidence at that time, widely reported.
Investigative journalists uncovered the web of the new company formed around the time she was lobbying. The most significant evidence was that the sole person of significant control was sacked, proving that he was not the sole person of control. They further discovered that her husband, Doug Barrowman, actually owned the company. The evidence has therefore changed.
Michelle Mone and her husband had an in-house film made about their life, and how badly they had been treated. They followed this up with a BBC interview. Despite her previous denials, she admitted that she had lied. Solid evidence. She said she had done it on legal advice.
Michelle Mone insisted that she had no benefit from the contract, not sure in what Lala land (sorry Lala) a wife can think she doesn't benefit from her husband's wealth. more changed evidence.
Her legal advisor goes public, threatening to sue anyone who says that he advised her to lie, more evidence.

The point of this longwinded ramble is to show what the three types would think.
First group would be pro or anti Mone depending on their politics, whether they fancied her, or whether they thought Corbyn would have done worse.
Second group would have changed their minds as things developed, or may well have used their life experience to think that it was wrong from the start
Third would have to change their view based on the available evidence as the story developed. If that view is not changed, then a three is actually a two.

And in the end, non of us makes the slightest scrap of difference.

PS, happy to pass on my Engineers definition of an expert if anyone is interested :)
Click to expand...
Hes always condescending .
 
Always tangerine said:
Interesting and informative article .
bylinetimes.com

COVID Cronyism and Mone – The Tip of the Iceberg: Byline Times' Full Story of the PPE Cash Carousel – Byline Times

Byline Times has been unravelling the dealings behind the procurement of personal protective equipment (PPE) in the UK since the very early days of the pandemic. Here’s what we learnt – and what we still need answers to...
bylinetimes.com bylinetimes.com
Click to expand...

The problem is it's directly contradicted by the testimony to both the High Court, and the House of Commons, that I've already shown you.
 
Always tangerine said:
Im going to class that as a condescending put down ( while accepting I cant give you any names)
Click to expand...
Simply put, if you can't be bothered to provide evidence to support your claims, why should you expect anything else?

On the subject of Labour MP's, I do remember some of them claiming back in 2020 that there were manufacturers in their constituencies that could step up to the plate, but since they never identified the companies we have no way of knowing if they really could provide PPE on the scale needed, or if they even existed in the first place, so the claims they made were nothing more that political point scoring in the midst of a national emergency.
 
Come on Mossy. You’ve made a start but now you need to up your game and provide “evidence”. And “reliable” evidence at that.

I’m beginning to suspect that Lost is actually a mole planted by the Labour Party.
 
Tangerinemoss said:
Interesting insight from Lost to his thought process, which I'm sure serves him well as an "expert". It also explains his condescending attitude to the rest of us who disagree, obviously regards us in the same light as his "juniors"

This is a social media website, where we discuss whatever we wish. You can divide posters into three rough groups:

First, those who's response to everything is gut / emotional or belief driven
Second, those who read widely, listen to many sources, and form a view based on their prejudices, beliefs and experience.
Thirdly, those who will only write about what they can prove with published evidence.

These are all equally valid and all have their flaws, just like us posters.

Let's take the title of the post as an example.

Michelle Mone lobbied for a business to be given a PPE contract, via the VIP route ( ruled illegal, by the way)
She did not reveal any connection to the company as she has repeatedly said she has no links, that is evidence at that time.
To drive home her independence, she instructed legals to threaten several people who wrote about it, including the New European. That is also evidence at that time, widely reported.
Investigative journalists uncovered the web of the new company formed around the time she was lobbying. The most significant evidence was that the sole person of significant control was sacked, proving that he was not the sole person of control. They further discovered that her husband, Doug Barrowman, actually owned the company. The evidence has therefore changed.
Michelle Mone and her husband had an in-house film made about their life, and how badly they had been treated. They followed this up with a BBC interview. Despite her previous denials, she admitted that she had lied. Solid evidence. She said she had done it on legal advice.
Michelle Mone insisted that she had no benefit from the contract, not sure in what Lala land (sorry Lala) a wife can think she doesn't benefit from her husband's wealth. more changed evidence.
Her legal advisor goes public, threatening to sue anyone who says that he advised her to lie, more evidence.

The point of this longwinded ramble is to show what the three types would think.
First group would be pro or anti Mone depending on their politics, whether they fancied her, or whether they thought Corbyn would have done worse.
Second group would have changed their minds as things developed, or may well have used their life experience to think that it was wrong from the start
Third would have to change their view based on the available evidence as the story developed. If that view is not changed, then a three is actually a two.

And in the end, non of us makes the slightest scrap of difference.

PS, happy to pass on my Engineers definition of an expert if anyone is interested :)
Click to expand...

Perhaps TM there are only two kinds of poster: those that regularly bring something to the party (by way of knowledge, insight, intuition, humanity or humour), and those that mostly do not.

Of those that usually do not bring anything, the one`s that think they do and are oblivious to their short comings are probably the most ridiculous. And they tend to be very repetitive and very anal...;)

Happy Xmas to y`all...
 
I wonder if the Isle of Man Government might actually rescind Mone's and Barrowman's residency permits for being undesirable persons?
That would stir things up well, if they had to return to the UK mainland and be subject to the full attention of HMRC. But, no matter, the NCA's and CPS's reach does extend to the Island.
 
Lost Seasider said:
The problem is it's directly contradicted by the testimony to both the High Court, and the House of Commons, that I've already shown you.
Click to expand...
Yet the NAO agree with the findings. £9 billion on unusable PPE. Sure you said they vindicated the VIP lane.
 
Archibald Knox said:
I wonder if the Isle of Man Government might actually rescind Mone's and Barrowman's residency permits for being undesirable persons?
That would stir things up well, if they had to return to the UK mainland and be subject to the full attention of HMRC. But, no matter, the NCA's and CPS's reach does extend to the Island.
Click to expand...
If they arrived in a boat ….. well that’s unfortunate. And totally against everything Lost stands for.
 
hertfordseasider said:
Now, Mone(y) is a conniving bitch and she and her husband as well as those in Government who allowed this to happen should be thoroughly investigated through the legal system but as for the woman in Stockport, WTF was she doing employing all those people and making all that stuff prior to having a contract, that's just nuts.
Click to expand...
Agree Herts but I’ll bet no-one asked her that question.
Not seen or heard of her but she sounds like a bit of a chancer but her plan went tits up so obviously she blames someone else..
 
ElBurroSinNombre said:
Mone and husband interviewed by Kunesberg this morning.
Interesting stuff, they spend five minutes trying to explain that profits going into a trust isn't the same as profiting personally. And that because the trust is controlled by the husband, Mines children might not benefit because they could divorce - dancing on the head of a pin.
According to the couple all contracts were fulfilled. Will be interesting to see how this pans out.
Click to expand...
Colonel Tom’s daughter also tried to cover her tracks when she was filtering away the money from his charity.
 
traffordtang said:
At the time lots of companies were turning their factories over to making PPE. They thought they were helping, war mentality kind of thing. On the news there was constant articles about the dire lack of PPE in hospitals and in the care sector. There shouldn’t have been any need for contracts, just for someone to check their suitability because they were needed, and urgently. Which is why the government rushed through their mates contracts and Mone and partner were able to bring in a whole load of Chinese tat that we’re still paying to store. Other countries were happy to take them off her hand
Click to expand...
Trafford, perhaps I’m somewhat sceptical but I wouldn’t call it war mentality but more opportunism to ward a quick dollar.
 
Lost Seasider said:
Source? Do we even know if they were of a type suitable for the NHS?

In any event, the first SAGE meeting was on 22 January 2020, nobody knew what Covid was at the time, so whoever turned them down wouldn't have known how many we'd need, and I suspect that decision never made it to a minister's desk.

Finally, all procurement was handled by Civil Servants, only the Permanent Secretary has the power to approve contracts, so why do you think he would've been handing out contracts to the ministers' mates?
Click to expand...
Where's your evidence for NO ONE knew what covid was at that time?
 
Archibald Knox said:
Moany Mone and Barrowman are domiciled in the Isle of Man. It has its own tax authority independent of the UK. Our HMRC will not get a look in. The Manx will likely not care if they get their cut. Though there might be little to pay at all with a trust, which heaps insult on injury.

kpmg.com

Tax in the Isle of Man

Consider the tax advantages available to Isle of Man resident individuals and companies.
kpmg.com kpmg.com
Click to expand...
Apologies for late reply, a good point but in the last 3/4 months HMRC have recovered just short of 1.2 billion from 2 high profile people/ companies who displayed the same confidence in HMRC's ability to get to grips with offshoring.
 
ElBurroSinNombre said:
www.theguardian.com

Michelle Mone’s husband says couple being ‘hung out to dry’ by ministers

Doug Barrowman says NCA investigation into Covid ‘VIP lane’ firm is being used to distract from government incompetence
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com


This could get very messy.
Mone and Barrowman are coming out swinging!
Watch this space.
Click to expand...
I still don't get that their admission of a criminal offence, relating to ownership papers at Companies House, allows them to still claim conspiracy. If prosecuted, they literally have no defence.

Real post Trump truth denial, if I repeat it often enough you will believe it.
 
Lost Seasider said:
Just someone with professional training and experience of working as an expert, and my posting style reflects that, the very first thing you will learn is that for every statement that you make, you will be asked "what is the evidentiary basis for that statement", and if you can't answer you will be in trouble.

So, if a junior were to say to me "this is now very well known and documented", my immediate response would be, okay, go find the documents then, and if (when) they couldn't, I would be angry.
Click to expand...
You'd be angry?

Top quality team building there fella.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top